Best of Races/Classes
Abel
Member Posts: 785
28/11, 20:50 - Important note: I intended to revise completely this guide before the release. Since release is very near I post it. Unfortunately it is far from completion. However I think it can still be useful until I update it.
So mind that while you read it. For example, I had no time to do the full comparisons I intended to do to back up my recommendations. But don't worry, more is to come very soon.
And, as a very special gift for this enhanced edition of Baldur's Gate, I made a powerful tool you can use with Excel to compare various builds. It's also very limited right now, but already potent.
Introduction:
After some thinking I decided to rewrite this post. Hopefully, it is now truly beginners’ friendly. Beginners’ cannot but progress so it also contains detailed analysis for demanding players.
I initiated a poll on this very forum to verify what the most common play style would be. It is as I thought and a majority of you will play the game with a custom character, adding non-player characters (NPC) to the party along the way. So, what follows will concern this play style.
Now, what we, new and experienced players alike, ask ourselves when starting a new game is: « what character should I create »? Character creation is doubtless one of the most entertaining aspect of Baldur’s Gate (BG) and of role-playing games (RPG) in general.
Including the three new NPCs introduced by BG: Enhanced Edition (EE), the total number of NPC you can recruit is twenty seven. Given that your party can only house a total of six characters, choices will have to be made.
The purpose of this thread is to show you a selection of personal favorite main character builds. I will not give any advice concerning which or how many NPC you should recruit. Likewise, my selection won’t take into account the possible teams you could come up with.
I believe that many will keep their BG: EE main character for BG2: EE. I will then try as best I can to offer viable builds on the saga run.
This selection will show you the results of a character versus character comparison. My hypothesis is that whatever character will come out better will also be better whatever the team. I won’t explain why here. Just be aware that my conclusions, though they could be still be true without it, rests on this hypothesis.
EDIT: Gnomes can't triple class as @Majoca pointed out, so F/M/T can neither be Gnomes or Illusionists! The line above should mention F/M/T as Class and Half-Elf as Race.
Notes:
All other alternatives I didn't mention are relatively inferior in my opinion. That goes for certain classes which would otherwise be useful in BG2:EE.
Addenda:
Here's a quick comparison between the Mage and the Cleric classes. It only compares spells for level 7 characters, which is the maximum reachable level of one or the other class when multi-classed (single class is usually a waste on these classes). The selection is based on the use and power of a given spell. It notably means that specific spells like Remove Curse weren't included. It also means that lesser versions of spells or unstackable ones weren't included. When both classes had a similar spell it wasn't included either (there's no point in comparing the same thing). If you don't agree with this selection and think some spells should be added/removed, please say so and why you think so.
Comments and conclusions below.
So, I thought a bit more about both these builds and decided to compare them.
Here are my charted results:
This first table is pretty self explanatory. I think you get the code color. Blue is Blade, pink is Kensaï/Mage, purple refers to both.
Numbers in paranthesis after THAC0 show THAC0 affected by Attack (Rolls) relative modifiers gained through various means (see other chart further below).
Now this chart shows the delta (difference) between the maximum spell level reached by each build. By instance, -1 means the maximum spell level of the Kensaï/Mage (K/M) is 1 level less than the Blade own maximum spell level. Be aware it may means the former has 0 spells (in case the Blade maximum spell level is 1).
Next columns show the amount of experience for which the delta applies. I picked 160k as total to simplify a bit things.
As you can see, for 76% of this total the K/M has more spell levels.
This one is a bit similar. But it shows the delta between (casters) levels. It is Bard centric.
For 54% of 160k XP, the Blade has more levels, meaning added spell power.
Here is represented the comparative advantages of each build. It means only what is specific to each build.
See how Offensive Spin is always at least pared by K/M permanent abilities, except Haste and Damage (Maximum). Defensive Spin has no equivalent but remember you can't activate both spins simultaneously. So it's not so much of an advantage there.
Concerning the Blade (Bard) song, it's actually weak. Even weaker than a level 1 Remove Fear spell since it takes time to launch and only lasts 1 round.
Nothing too amazing with the Pickpocket score either. I expect many of your targets to turn hostile on steal.
Lore, even halved still reach impressive levels and it doesn't even take into account Wisdom/Intelligence modifiers.
If we take into account Attack (Rolls) and Damage (Rolls) the K/M really shines. Here's the last chart, displaying each build performance in those effects. I didn't consider Strength, because we could imagine your character would at least have the innate Draw Upon Holy Might.
In conclusion, if I had to choose a Bard I would choose a Jester for his song. If I had to choose a castattacker between a Blade and a K/M, my preference would go to the K/M, since additional spell levels are more important than additional caster levels when values are equal or close. Also because, its raw statistics are better.
So mind that while you read it. For example, I had no time to do the full comparisons I intended to do to back up my recommendations. But don't worry, more is to come very soon.
And, as a very special gift for this enhanced edition of Baldur's Gate, I made a powerful tool you can use with Excel to compare various builds. It's also very limited right now, but already potent.
Introduction:
After some thinking I decided to rewrite this post. Hopefully, it is now truly beginners’ friendly. Beginners’ cannot but progress so it also contains detailed analysis for demanding players.
I initiated a poll on this very forum to verify what the most common play style would be. It is as I thought and a majority of you will play the game with a custom character, adding non-player characters (NPC) to the party along the way. So, what follows will concern this play style.
Now, what we, new and experienced players alike, ask ourselves when starting a new game is: « what character should I create »? Character creation is doubtless one of the most entertaining aspect of Baldur’s Gate (BG) and of role-playing games (RPG) in general.
Including the three new NPCs introduced by BG: Enhanced Edition (EE), the total number of NPC you can recruit is twenty seven. Given that your party can only house a total of six characters, choices will have to be made.
The purpose of this thread is to show you a selection of personal favorite main character builds. I will not give any advice concerning which or how many NPC you should recruit. Likewise, my selection won’t take into account the possible teams you could come up with.
I believe that many will keep their BG: EE main character for BG2: EE. I will then try as best I can to offer viable builds on the saga run.
This selection will show you the results of a character versus character comparison. My hypothesis is that whatever character will come out better will also be better whatever the team. I won’t explain why here. Just be aware that my conclusions, though they could be still be true without it, rests on this hypothesis.
EDIT: Gnomes can't triple class as @Majoca pointed out, so F/M/T can neither be Gnomes or Illusionists! The line above should mention F/M/T as Class and Half-Elf as Race.
Notes:
All other alternatives I didn't mention are relatively inferior in my opinion. That goes for certain classes which would otherwise be useful in BG2:EE.
Addenda:
Here's a quick comparison between the Mage and the Cleric classes. It only compares spells for level 7 characters, which is the maximum reachable level of one or the other class when multi-classed (single class is usually a waste on these classes). The selection is based on the use and power of a given spell. It notably means that specific spells like Remove Curse weren't included. It also means that lesser versions of spells or unstackable ones weren't included. When both classes had a similar spell it wasn't included either (there's no point in comparing the same thing). If you don't agree with this selection and think some spells should be added/removed, please say so and why you think so.
Comments and conclusions below.
- Remarks Entries where Mage is caster accounted for 25/48 (52%), Cleric 23/48 (48%). Please note that each effect tied to a given spell adds another entry.
- Buff We can see some clusters around certain effects like AC for the Mage or Attack (Rolls) for the Cleric. It seems each class focuses on a certain effect.
- Damage Nothing much to say about it. Mages definitely have the edge there with various ways of defeating single mirrored spellcasters or large groups of all alignment foes.
- Debuff Again, Mages do wonders and beat Clerics in every effect. Spell level even stays decent though leaning a bit on the high side. Slow and Glitterdust will heavily debuff most physical attackers leaving them vulnerable to your own physical attacks. A nice solution to low THAC0s.
- Conclusion As far as spells are concerned, Mages seem to be superior to Clerics in BG:EE. Armor isn't necessarily an advantage of Clerics over Mages, though it saves spell slots and casting hassles.
If we remove multiple entries for a given spell, it gives Mage 22/38 (58%), Cleric 16/38 (42%).
So it seems Cleric spells have generally more effects than Mage spells. But, it doesn't tell anything about what kind of effects or their power.
Obviously, Cleric can increase their AC with physical armor but Mages compete very well and can further decrease their own AC by 7. Concerning Attack (Rolls), not only do Clerics trust these effects, they can apply them to a whole group.
But again, Mages really shine on the protection side. Notably with Evasion spells that totally mitigate direct attacks. Clerics really lack something substantial in that area. Of course, they can heal but it's usually better to avoid or attack and it doesn't take as much time.
Well, this comparison doesn't take skills, base saves or THAC0 into account. But I think this shows enough. These parameters also don't matter much at such low levels and they can be ignored depending on the multi-class you choose. Additionally, for the sake of a fair comparison, level 5 spells were not considered, but dual-class Mages can access them.
- Chill Touch (1)
- Larloch’s Minor Drain (1)
- Ghoul Touch (2)
- Horror (2)
- Hold Undead (3)
- Skull Trap (3)
- Vampiric Touch (3)
- Contagion (4)
- Spirit Armor (4)
- Animate Dead (5)
So, I thought a bit more about both these builds and decided to compare them.
Here are my charted results:
This first table is pretty self explanatory. I think you get the code color. Blue is Blade, pink is Kensaï/Mage, purple refers to both.
Numbers in paranthesis after THAC0 show THAC0 affected by Attack (Rolls) relative modifiers gained through various means (see other chart further below).
Now this chart shows the delta (difference) between the maximum spell level reached by each build. By instance, -1 means the maximum spell level of the Kensaï/Mage (K/M) is 1 level less than the Blade own maximum spell level. Be aware it may means the former has 0 spells (in case the Blade maximum spell level is 1).
Next columns show the amount of experience for which the delta applies. I picked 160k as total to simplify a bit things.
As you can see, for 76% of this total the K/M has more spell levels.
This one is a bit similar. But it shows the delta between (casters) levels. It is Bard centric.
For 54% of 160k XP, the Blade has more levels, meaning added spell power.
Here is represented the comparative advantages of each build. It means only what is specific to each build.
See how Offensive Spin is always at least pared by K/M permanent abilities, except Haste and Damage (Maximum). Defensive Spin has no equivalent but remember you can't activate both spins simultaneously. So it's not so much of an advantage there.
Concerning the Blade (Bard) song, it's actually weak. Even weaker than a level 1 Remove Fear spell since it takes time to launch and only lasts 1 round.
Nothing too amazing with the Pickpocket score either. I expect many of your targets to turn hostile on steal.
Lore, even halved still reach impressive levels and it doesn't even take into account Wisdom/Intelligence modifiers.
If we take into account Attack (Rolls) and Damage (Rolls) the K/M really shines. Here's the last chart, displaying each build performance in those effects. I didn't consider Strength, because we could imagine your character would at least have the innate Draw Upon Holy Might.
In conclusion, if I had to choose a Bard I would choose a Jester for his song. If I had to choose a castattacker between a Blade and a K/M, my preference would go to the K/M, since additional spell levels are more important than additional caster levels when values are equal or close. Also because, its raw statistics are better.
Post edited by Abel on
6
Comments
Cool thread!
@Wolk I like Dwarves, but Fighter/Cleric is inferior to Fighter/Mage in my opinion. I'm doing a short writing to partly demonstrate why but it's in French and I have to translate it. Please note I was only talking about BG:EE. Unfortunately, Paladins are inferior to dual/multi-class characters, even to some other single class ones. And I really doubt about the usefulness of the Inquisitor specific abilities in BG:EE.
edit: i just read the french post, good argument about fighter/cleric being inferior to ranger cleric
Which is the better tank is debateable. In BG1 a F/C can achieve a better AC, but a F/M has Mirror Image and Blur. A good aligned F/M will get DUHM cancelling one of the F/C's advantages. In BG1 I wouldn't call cleric buffs particularly 'epic'. I'd say the F/M is better.
In BG2, a F/C will be able to deal more damage per hit with offensive cleric buffs like DUHM and Righteous Magic. I don't know which has better dps however, since a F/M can achieve 10 apr with Improved Haste then use Critical Strike over GWW. In no way is a F/C a better tank than a F/M in BG2 when a F/M has Stoneskin and PfMW at the very least.
ITT: Crazy people
Oh wait, they're one and the same.
I think it might be more a matter of taste. Both are really good and have different strengths.
Cons are low base HP (makes it so that unlike fighter/x classes bards should avoid melee in BG1) and early game advantage begins to taper off at around level 5. After that he becomes something of a fighter/mage, except with better spells and other goodies.
Most of this comparison is for solo though. In a party setting, for example, clerics are unparalleled - many of his buffs are AoE or can be cast on allies. Buffs-wise, overall mages would be left in the dirt if it wasn't for spells like Haste. It's a balance thing, you can't really beat a mage when it comes to self-buffs either.
@CaptRory Yes both have their strengths. It's a shame Clerics lack spells to make them true defensive walls. But they shine in group support. However Mages are way better in debuffing which is an indirect group support.
That's why I'm still convinced Mages are superior to Clerics in BG:EE. However, if there's already a Mage in your team, then it's not so sure.
@Nuin No I didn't mention Bards indeed. I agree with what you say. But in the end, Bards struggle to be more than jacks of all trades. Jester and Skalds songs are useful but they require your Bard to do nothing but sing which is not efficient at all in comparison to cast & attack. In BG:EE, they do not evolve so much more quickly than pure Mages but they get less spells and later.
I hesitated for Blades because they're indeed versatile. But in the end, I think they are a bit inferior to F/M.
You mention level 5, but at this level, Bards can only memorize 3/1 spells. A F/M would be 3/3 with 2/1 spells, 3/2 if specialised. True, the Bard would have 2 more levels of casting but it goes to waste not having enough spells to cast. Offensive Spin is really nice, but the F/M can reach 18/00 in Strength which is better in terms of hit/dmg boni. He can also specialise to get an additional damage and 1/2 attack. Maximum damage is good but not so much better than the additional damage Strength and Specialisation provide (~+3 as compared to the Bard). And well, even if the Blade has the edge there, its final THAC0 isn't so pretty. All this will stay pretty much the same for higher levels.
Then, the dual-class will F>M will outperform the Blade and eventually gain access to level 5 spells.
Still, I reckon the Blade brings a bit of everything and strict performances aside, it's a good addition though not as good as in BG2:EE to my opinion.
You underestimate the Skald and the Jester. The Skald, for example, would give you 5 NPCs x 2 damage bonus=10 extra damage per attack if he sings. If he casts haste, double that (20 extra damage). If he summons 5 minions and they too get hasted, double that (40 extra damage). This is not counting extra attacks from warriors/proficiencies and how the Skald and can drop his song every once in a while to cast Fireball or use a wand charge. Actually, there are testimonies from players in just about every forum proclaiming how the Skald is downright OP in BG1:Tutu. There's a reason modders are keeping a close eye on the class. You don't need to hear it from me, you can simply search around for these posts. The Jester is similar.
Your argument on Bards "not having enough spells to cast" doesn't make sense. The bard has exactly the same spell progression as a level 7 mage, except his spells are 3 levels better. That means his core spells have better duration, better effects and higher damage. The quantity over quality argument is moot because of wands. Having 18/00 strength is nice but remember that anyone can reach 19 strength in BG1 because of tomes. In any case, range trumps melee in BG1. In BG1 the difference between the THAC0 of a fighter/mage and a bard is a mere two points (which means they will have exactly the same THAC0 when the Blade activates Offensive Spin).
The one thing that keeps the fighter/mage from simply being a substandard bard in BG1 is the fact that the bard, for all his usefulness, is dangerously vulnerable at melee because of his low base hitpoints, while the F/M can be an excellent tank/frontliner, with the added bonus of also having access to wands.
Considering that for a whole 4 levels the dual-class F/M is essentially dead weight (and at a very critical point in the game) his slight advantage over the bard is well-deserved (the bard, especially the Blade, has better THAC0).
BG2 is a completely different game, simply because one doesn't have to worry about possibly getting 1-hit by a crit from a hobgoblin anymore.
There are no bad classes. Everything is good. Literally everything. Are some builds slightly stronger than others? Sure. Does it matter? No.
You know what the difference between fighter/mage and a pure bard is? Nothing because they are both going to just throw fireballs out of wands because trying to win in a game where you can literally just do one thing over and over again successfully every time is hard.
About the Skald. You need to compare it to another character to determine its true usefulness. So, I will take your assumption of a party of 10 and the 20 points of damage it would indirectly do.
Now take this very simple character: a Half-Orc Berserker with Great Mastery in Great Swords/Katana (level 3) and 19 Strength. Under Rage, an attack would do in average: 5 + 5 + 7 + 2 = 19. So, it's quite close to 20. To be hasted or not is not important, because it only adds 1 attack so has no effect on damage per attack which you chose as a basis.
Then, you're right the Skald can switch roles. I will add it to the list most certainly.
About spell progression. I was mentioning level 5 not higher levels of course.
I made a table to compare spell progression. To be fair I compare a Bard to a multi-class though specialist Mage (as would be a Gnome).
As you can see, the Mage seems to usually have more spells at it's disposal. Not so much more though, I admit. The additional spellcaster levels are indeed interesting. Now Dual-class Mages would compare better against Bards in that field.
In your THAC0 calculations, you forgot the Specialisation possibly the Great Mastery. All right with the Strength tome though it comes quite late in game.
You can apply your Strength modifier to hurled weapon like throwing axes.
Yes you're right about BG2 being another thing, hence me limiting this thread to BG:EE.
Most of us having completed the games many times, you will agree I think, we may appreciate subtle differences a bit more than fresh players.
Well I could elaborate more, but I think you get my meaning.
It's like saying that a screw driver is superior to a wrench, get over yourselves they're both good combos if played correctly and neither one is "superior".
Part of the joy of the game is making a character that interests you and optimizing that character. I really want to play a Kensai through the game as nothing but a Kensai - with the advantages and disadvantages inherent in this. Hence the motivation for my 7SEP post in The Hall of stories .
I do enjoy the perspectives I see from other players, as there are things that characters can do that I never realized. I used to, for instance, see Bards as a wasted class, where I now find them interesting. That doesn't mean I'd enjoy (or succeed) at playing one, but they are intriguing and open a lot of possibilities.
I don't know if F/C or F/M is better, overall, but a lot depends on what you like. If you prefer cleric spells and heavy armor, and that's more enjoyable than having to constantly worry about buffs (I'd argue the F/M needs the buffs more of the time than F/C), then go for it!
@reemilfam: I used to think that about wizard slayers and I still think they are somewhat crappy just because their only benefit isn't really all that necessary, but someone pointed out awhile ago that you basically only lose out on rings, gloves, belts, and consumable items (Wizard Slayers can still use the Amulet of the Seldarine you get toward the end of Shadows of Amn). You could just use longswords and equip all your extra weapon slots warriors get with things that have nifty on-use effects, as well as utilizing spiffy hats for much the same.
But like I said before, this thread isn't about what's « good », because everything is « good » if your intent is to finish the game. This thread is about analyzing different builds and compare their performances though subtle the difference may be.
Your metaphor is interesting but I see it the other way (like the half-filled/empty glass). In my opinion, there are more resemblances than differences between a Mage and a Cleric. Just take some time to give a look at the table I draw comparing spells I selected for each class. See how they share many effects.
If you now consider not the effects but the type you see that spellcasters are not different: they buff, debuff, damage and summon. If you think about this, they serve the exact same purpose.
Starting from there it becomes possible to compare them. Thus my comparison.
Moreover the fact you subscribed to this forum, waiting for the enhanced edition of an old game also shows you're obsessing about it in your own way. The difference is, you know what I'm interested about!
xD Way too complex man !
This is already about powergaming, which should never be the first goal of a beginner (but that's my opinion).
Also, I think some people regardless of their newness to the game will be interested in knowing the specifics of my decisions.
I dunno, but maybe the main difference is simply in how we play. I focus more on party synergy instead of the individual skills of the NPCs. I do not rank NPCs based on which class is "better" compared to the other, I rank them according to which class best complements my party and the "core" members at any given time. As another poster pointed out, this type of categorization is much too general and doesn't work well when it comes to topics like these. @otherposts And yeah, bards have borderline nonexistent melee viability in the original BG1 (low hitpoints, no bonus attacks with melee weapons, no dual-wield) . No biggie, just stick to ranged combat.
My conclusions can be found here.
I'll quickly come to the defense of a class people otherwise think is bad. But when it comes to comparing, I just don't even care at this point. The thing I've learned over the years is if I plan too hard, I end up not enjoying the game.
Yes, the limit of my comparisons so far is that they are per character based. Team analysis is a whole different thing. But in building a team you always start by picking a first character (for whatever reasons). In that sense, build analysis would be a basis. However, it is true that in a party 1 + 1 doesn't necessarily equals 2, since synergy between members may empower them.
On the other hand, I don't think I was so far from truth either when I said that for example caster had basic and common functions ([de]buff, damage, summon). Then even, what's combat about? It's about lowering your opponent(s) HP to 0 before yours reach the same amount. True, BG isn't all about combat (even the manual stresses it). You also choose characters for their personality, because you're curious about their history and want to interact with them.
I would like to take this parameter into account too. I'll surely rework my original post anyway. It's not definitive, our discussion will reshape it.
@sandmanCCL All right, I see. Handy work. Yes, you're right at some point.
I personally love to play the Cleric class. When played right, it can be extremely efficient and versatile, making it the ideal candidate for soloing. A solo-cleric standing behind an army of buffed skeletons (Bless & Chant, at lower levels) will walk through most early to mid-game challenges. Individual buffs (PfE, DUHM, Holy Power, Boon of Lathander if applicable) makes him an unrivaled melee combattant. Low-level offensive spells are outstanding in BG1: Command & Doom (no saving throws), Charm, Hold. There's an efficient battery of weapons vs mages (Dispel Magic, Silence, Insects). Much later on, lvl.5 spells are simply awesome.
Finally and above all, you get Sanctuary as a lvl.1 spell. Better than thieves' stealth or mages' invisibility. It is also a life savor provided you allow yourself enough casting time without being disrupted. It allowed me to successfully achieve a no-reload solo of BG1.
Opening locks is not an issue with the huge strength bonuses available.
The only real ennemy of a solo-cleric will be traps. He can detect them, but not disarm. That's an issue in Durlag's Tower, and of course BG2.